How exactly people in this country vented their exasperations before the advent of online commentary isn't clear. Time was when a person read a newspaper, and regardless of their opinion of the scribblings, shrugged and said, "Huh." Or maybe in the extreme they handed the paper across the dinner table and said, "Get a load of this."
Now, obviously, given the internet's reach, everyone's points and counterpoints receive a much more complete airing. Which perhaps is fair. Notwithstanding the low accuracy bar set for these vexations, many of which are real whoppers, and never mind as well the cloak of anonymity from which they emerge, a greater societal good might be served.
As U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once said, "Debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and … may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks. …"
Again, fair enough. But given available facts, some things should be beyond debate. The sun rises in the east, for instance. Neil Armstrong' moon walk wasn't staged in a TV studio. And there wasn't a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
Also this: Hunters don't hunt drunk.
A bold statement, I know. And a surprise bulletin, perhaps, to some readers who commented on a story published last week in this newspaper about a new Wisconsin law that removes the minimum age for deer hunting in that state.
Wisconsin legislators decided parents, not the government, should determine when little Susie or little Johnnie is ready to shinny up a tree and waylay a whitetail.
Of the 59 commenters who penned opinions to the online version of that tale, some added value to the discussion.